Page 2444 - Week 06 - Thursday, 10 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It is important that we pass these provisions today so that the Labor Club does not get out of jail free on this one. (Second speaking period taken.) It is important that we pass this now to create the continuity so that we are not defeatist and say that the horse has bolted and there is nothing we can do about it. There is something we can do about it. We can pass these amendments that implement the spirit of Mr Smyth’s legislation, which has been on the table since 21 June. And what will the penalty be? The penalty will be to restore things to what they were on 21 June. That is not a penalty. That does not have an adverse effect upon anybody.
Even the Labor Club, who anticipated paying fines, will get off the hook to some extent. But there will not have been large-scale transfers of funds as a means of getting around the provisions of this legislation. When we are trying to ensure that there will not be an arms race in relation to campaign finance reform, there is no point saying that we are going to limit donations if the money has already been transferred. Millions of dollars have been transferred already to the Labor Party. And from what I am hearing, money is being transferred even as we speak. It did not stop after the 2011 financial year. It is still going on. We do not know the extent of that, and we will not know until September or October this year, because that is when the next annual report will come out.
I urge members to support these provisions, which put in place Mr Smyth’s very sensible provisions from June 2011. I urge members not to be defeatist and say that the horse has already bolted on that one. The horse has not bolted while ever we have the will to do something about it.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development) (9.54): This amendment is opposed by the government. It proposes a retrospective penalty for an action that is, and always has been, legal. It creates a disbenefit—it may not be a criminal disbenefit, but it is still a disbenefit—to entities and organisations who were acting legally at the time and are still acting legally.
The amendment appears to mirror the retrospective provisions in Mr Smyth’s electoral donation limit amendment bill; however, there are also some important differences. In particular, this new provision refers to the concept of a party group, which is not present in Mr Smyth’s bill. It is arguable that the new provision does not apply to payments from one entity within a party grouping to another entity within the grouping. As a result, it would appear that this new Liberals clause would not apply to a gift made by an associated entity of a party to the relevant recipient party.
As for the Liberals’ amendment 12, this amendment does not distinguish between gifts made for federal purposes and those made for ACT purposes, and may therefore be attempting to regulate federal election transactions, which the government is advised is not within power. It is presumed that the reference to associated entity in this clause would pick up the new definition of associated entity in these amendments.
If the intention of this clause is to justify its retrospectivity by reference to the publication of Mr Smyth’s bill last year, it is arguable that this new amendment has
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video